If you want the TL;DR version of how to post to /r/truegaming, it is as follows:

Come up with a clear title; avoid sensationalism.

Describe what you wish to discuss in detail in the message body in a meaningful manner.

Focus the discussion in a specific direction and avoid general questions ("what are your thoughts", "what games/mechanics are x", "discuss", yes/no questions, etc.).

RULES

General

This is a subreddit for discussion. This is not a sub for memes, images links, article links, fanboyism/PCMR and circlejerk type posts. This means that there’s bound to be agreement, disagreement, interesting tangents, and even indifference.

Have an open mind. Don't dismiss someone just because they have a different opinion. Instead, clearly explain why you have a disagreement, and be willing to understand differing points of view.

Don’t be rude. This is a forum for friendly discussion, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Hate speech will result in an immediate permanent ban.

Use your votes. Downvoting is not for disagreement, however if (and only if) a post doesn't fit the rules, feel free to downvote. Certainly upvote the kinds of posts you want to see more of!

On the same note, don't let downvotes get to you. Despite being against “Reddiquette” and these rules, many users downvote for arbitrary reasons. No one but the individual downvoters are in control of this. If you downvote, we suggest that you explain why in the comments.

Automoderator will remove top-level comments with fewer than 150 characters. If you're posting a link relevant to the discussion, elaborate on its content.

News relevant to the gaming industry and culture (be sure to include discussion points).

Links to articles and videos that can serve as a jumping off point for discussion - but please include a summary and discussion points about the videos and articles.

DON'T POST

DAE posts, or any similar variant.

Posts asking for idle speculation ("Why don't more games do X?", "Why isn't X more popular?").

Vague or overly general posts ("What are your thoughts on X?", "How do you feel about X?"). Posts should specify the context of the discussion, not just ask for thoughts, feelings, or opinions in general.

List posts ("What games do X?", "What are some good examples of X?"). Check out /r/gamingsuggestions.

I was thinking about control-schemes, and how some games make a game with controls that just flow. When you're playing a game, you forget that there's a controller in your hand; you're interacting with the game on a very personal and intimate level, almost reaching a zen-like state where you "become one with the game." But as I though about this, I realized I didn't know exactly what it is about a control scheme that creates this sort of flow and ease of use. I can think of some good examples that worked well (Journey, Call of Duty, Bastion) but I can't quite put my finger on what it was about these control schemes that made them feel so great. What are some good examples of control schemes that do this and what is it that they do so well?

Just iterate and test as much as possible, there's no magical formula for control schemes. Getting as much feedback as possible is the only thing you can do to guarantee players will like your controls, and even then some people will still hate it.

This post is less about the nuances of controls that just flow, and more a general statement for default actions, but for the most basic actions: STICK WITH THE ESTABLISHED FORMULA.

I still remember the early Playstation days when every other game would switch around X and O where one was enter/select and the other was back. I don't even think Sony was internally consistent when it came to their console menus either. That shit was annoying.

Ideally every game should have fully re-mappable controls, but as far as the defaults go, if there is an established norm for that console / control type then messing with it is just going to confuse and frustrate new players.

Edit: I have to second Bastion as having really smooth controls. I think a lot of it had to do with the way rolling was implemented and how you still had control over movement when aiming/blocking. Some of the more difficult sections (with shrine idols invoked) almost felt like a bullet hell game with the amount of things you had to dodge. Feeling like you're constantly in control of the motion of your character, even while attacking and defending, was a huge factor here.

Interesting thing about the PS controls, X is a symbol for no and the O is a complementary symbol for yes, my guess is this is a pretty widely accepted system in Japan but not used in North America. I'm not positive of this, but for the PS 1 games I think I see a pattern where Japanese ones will use O for yes, and north American games switch it.

Portal 2 is a perfect example. The entire game really consists of movement with AWSD and placing portals with left and right clicks..... The click of a single button can prove to generate deeper game play than, say, a Kinect like accessory that uses advanced technology to track dozens of points of motion on the human body.....

The controls themselves are also important. If portal had you use the scroll wheel to switch between portal colors, and you had to press enter to grab something, that would be an awful control scheme. Valve is very good at designing control schemes.

I'd say the most important thing is internal consistency. If a button is identified as doing something, it should always do either that or something logical and understandable. One example is jumping while crouched. Some game will jump immediately and land back in crouch, some will jump and land standing, while others will simply uncrouch. The last example will feel awkward at times, since you'll try to jump only to stand taller.

I'm not sure how important it is to use exactly the same controls as every other game. One example is Medal of Honor: Airborn, which I played recently. When aiming down the sights, you actually can't move. Instead the move buttons act as a lean function. Forward and back stand slightly higher or lower, while side buttons lean. Not being able to directly move when aiming is unheard of now, but it was still able to work well there, because using movement for very minor adjustment when aiming made sense in the game.

I think the best thing for developers to do would be to put in an unskipable 10 minute tutorial explaining each control in detail and being as thorough about it as possible. And then for the whole game after that, add tooltips liberally just in case they forget how to climb up that ledge, or that they can jump. And when any new or unique enemy shows up, make sure you tell them as soon as possible how to beat it. Another great idea while you're at it, add in as many QTEs as you can. Bitches love them QTEs.

The thing is, when it comes to certain franchises and genres, like shooters, the formula is generally pretty well-established and almost universally the same. Not sure how many veterans would appreciate being forced through a tutorial.

Also, with teaching people how to beat enemies, that's fine, but it can also remove an intellectual element of the game where one has to figure out how to defeat an enemy.

And I'm not sure about you, but I'm sick of quicktime events. They just aren't fun.

I wasn't entirely positive; I realized as I was typing my response that I was literally countering every single one of your comments with a very easy counterargument, and couldn't help but thinking that maybe you were being sarcastic. In any case, apologies.

Do you think that Kinect and PS Move would've been developed and made if Wii Sports was a flop? The intuitive control scheme of that game brought a brand new audience for gaming that no other game had tapped into. Who would've think that flailing around in the living room would bring in new people into gaming. Sure Assasins Creed took intuitive conrols to a new level, but nowhere close to the level of Wii Sports and reaped its rewards.

I guess two more games which even though they've died off are Guitar Hero and Rock Band. I think what they did right what I think the Wiimote, Kinect, and Move did wrong was that they made a controler specialized to that specific game where as the consoles made something that was too general and didn't really immerse the user into the game as well. Would having to but a new controller for every new game be a bad thing for the industry, probably, but those two games sure made it profitable.

Saying Wii Sports was insignificant is like saying League of Legends was insignificant for the MMO industry. The fact of the matter is that no other game forced two companies to develop new hardware and software to create competition for it. Do you really think that PlayStation and Microsoft would have made those two peripherals if Wii Sports bombed badly? For better or for worse, Wii Sports changed the gaming landscape last generation, just accept that.

League of Legends was insignificant for the MMO industry, though, since it's not an MMO and has nothing in common with MMOs other than the fact that it's multiplayer.

Do you really think that PlayStation and Microsoft would have made those two peripherals if Wii Sports bombed badly? For better or for worse, Wii Sports changed the gaming landscape last generation, just accept that.

Tell me, how successful do you think the Playstation Move was? It's pretty much dying out. Hardly anyone I know owns one, and there aren't very many games that are designed around it.

The Kinect has done better commercially, but it still hasn't had any impressive games to back it up. To a gamer, the Kinect is mostly forgettable.

If by "shook up console control schemes", you mean, "inspired a couple of forgettable knock-offs that haven't had any significant impact on the gaming landscape", then yeah, I guess you could say that about Wii Sports. But I think you're giving it way too much credit. Wii Sports really hasn't had any lasting impact on the industry at all, and I wonder how you came to that ridiculous conclusion.

You really think that cutting 1/3 of the buttons out is a good way to maximize the abilities of the controller. Your fingers would likely be there anyway to get a better grip of the controller; may as well get some use of them.

Yeah, but in some cases, it's really necessary and important to have that many buttons. I can't imagine Call of Duty or Battlefield without them, and most other games make good use of them. Obviously some games get by using incredibly simple controls, but some games need that many buttons.

Ideally, you should use as few buttons as possible, and make their functions differ based on context. There should be no tooltips for interactions, but it should be obvious to the player what button they need to press to execute the action they desire, and the lack of tooltips aids in player immersion.

Unfortunately, this tends to piss of PC gamers who have many different buttons available to them with the keyboard and mouse at their fingertips. It's an interesting conundrum, to be sure, but I feel we should be decreasing the number of buttons we use, not increasing them.

I feel it has to do with how often you'll likely use those actions that help determine which button to map. If things buttons are close together then you don't have to move your fingers very far thus getting to the action faster which is important when you trying not to die.
Then combo of actions, if you want to do two actions simultaneously or one immediately after the other you don't want your fingers to get tangled.
but it would be an iteration task for sure.